View
223
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
FINAL REPORT
Assessment of Vulnerability Reduction to Climate Change in
Bangladesh
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH UNIT, WHO June 20 2014
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
Copyright @ WHO | 2014
Study Management and Technical Inputs Shamsul Gafur Mahmood, NPO, WHO AKM Ibrahim, SE Ground Water Circle, DPHE Ahammadul Kabir, National Consultant, Climate Change, WHO Study Conducted: Dr Shannon Rutherford Dr Zahirul Islam Professor Cordia Chu of Centre for Environment and Population Health Griffith University, Australia
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
1
Executive Summary
There is a little global argument that Bangladesh is extremely vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
One of the most critical impacts of climate change is related with water. The evidence has been growing
that both quantity and quality of water are already being affected across the diverse geographical areas of
Bangladesh. The impacts of reduced quantity and poor quality of drinking and cooking water on health
are reported in many areas of the country. They include direct health related impacts such as diarrhoea
and adverse pregnancy outcomes, impacts on livelihood and less direct impacts related to changing food
preparation and practices, hygiene, sanitation and social changes associated with migration.
In response to these current impacts of climate change on water quality and quantity and the recognition
that climate change will enhance these impacts in the future, numerous WASH focussed projects have
been implemented by the government and NGOs in Bangladesh. The extent to which the diversity of
WASH projects has reduced vulnerability to climate change is largely unknown. This report provides the
findings of a quantitative assessment of a tool that has been developed by UNDP, GEF and WHO for its
efficacy to assess climate change vulnerability reduction. The assessment was carried out in two locations
of coastal area by comparing between the areas where climate change WASH focused project and no
climate change focused WASH project is implemented.
The Vulnerability Reduction Assessment (VRA) tool provides a mechanism to follow up the results of
projects by following some pre-set indicators that measure the reduction in vulnerability and increases in
adaptive capacity. The VRA is a form of Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA), focusing on "health
decision-makers" perceptions of health sector vulnerability to climate change, and resilience or capacity
to adapt. It was designed for application at a variety of levels, from national to local, to capture the
diversity of stakeholder experiences and knowledge.
The tool’s strength is that it includes both quantitative and qualitative measures of vulnerability,
producing a set of scores for each component and an overall vulnerability reduction score supported by
responses that support the reasons and context for the ratings provided. The tool includes four key
components namely existing vulnerability, future risk and vulnerability, existing adaptation actions and
sustainability of actions in the future. For this particular sub-project or study, application of the tool
served two purposes namely collecting some community data for better understanding of water and health
related issues in vulnerable areas in order to plan for future projects and to assess the utility of the tool to
measure vulnerability reduction by implemented projects.
The tool was applied using a workshop approach focussed on two highly vulnerable coastal areas of
Bangladesh Matbharia upazila of Pirojpur districts and Shyamnagar upazila of Satkhira districts and a
total of four workshops were conducted in these areas. In addition a national workshop was conducted for
seeking comments and input on the tool and the above mentioned area. The Matbharia workshop
represented a baseline area as no specific WASH projects were implemented at the time of the workshop,
while the Shymnagar input was provided in the context of a Water Aid WASH project part-way
implemented.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
2
The findings of the project indicate an existing high level of vulnerability in the two communities, with
reported significant existing impacts of climate change on both water supply and quality that have
resulted in a range of community impacts, from perceived increases in diarrhoea, hypertension and
reproductive health issues to food security problems, livelihood loss, migration and damage to the
environment. Though the problems appear similar in the two communities, the national level workshop
highlighted that though the climate change has an influence on the water quality issues identified by the
Shymnagar community, land uses in the area such as shrimp farming were also an significant influence.
This reinforces the notion that climate change is often an exacerbator of existing risk.
Despite both communities indicating significant water and health vulnerability issues (scores very similar
for components A and B), overall the Shymnagar area scored higher than the Matbharia area suggesting a
reduced vulnerability in this area. This was mainly driven by the successful influence of the implemented
WASH project in that area and the related greater confidence in such measures being sustained in the
future compared with the Matbharia area where there was significant water issues identified but no
specific WASH project implemented. Common to both areas was an absence of health specific climate
change activity.
The tool and its application through a workshop were found to be a useful approach to identify and
understand the key vulnerabilities in the target communities, the future vulnerabilities under a projected
climate change scenario and provide a discussion forum for the effectiveness of existing climate change
adaptation activities and how they could be sustained in the future. Applying the process at numerous
tiers of government (from community to National) was also useful as these different groups provided
different perspectives. Some small modifications to wording and rating scales and increased time
allocated for improved explanation of difficult concepts will enhance the workshop process in the future.
The success of the VRA process will be better judged following a repeat application at a different stage of
project implementation within the target areas as per its intended purpose. However, caution should be
exercised in over-relying on the VR score itself given the small sample sizes used to generate it.
Interpretation should be made in the context of the qualitative data provided through discussion and
individual reasons provided for the responses selected. The VRA process could also be improved in the
future through improved health sector representation. Furthermore its utility will be maximised if the
same individuals can participate in future workshops following implementation of WASH and climate
change projects.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
3
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 BACKGROUND 4
2.0 OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES 5
3.0 METHODOLOGY 6
3.1 PHASE 1 – QUESTION DESIGN AND PRE-TEST 7
3.2 PHASE 2 – APPLICATION IN THE FIELD 7
3.2.1 IDENTIFIED FIELD SITES 7
3.2.2 WORKSHOP TOOL (H FORM AND QUESTIONNAIRE) 7
3.2.3 WORKSHOP PROCESS 9
3.3 PHASE 3 – SCORING 9
4.0 WASH AND HEALTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY 10
4.1 OVERALL VRA SCORE 10
4.2 WORKSHOPS AT SATKHIRA DISTRICT IN KHULNA DIVISION 14
4.2.1 UPAZILA LEVEL WORKSHOP FINDINGS AT SHYAMNAGAR UPAZILA 14
4.2.2 COMMUNITY LEVEL WORKSHOP FINDINGS AT SHYAMNAGAR UNION 16
4.3 UPAZILA LEVEL WORKSHOP FINDINGS AT MATHBARIA UPAZILA 18
4.4 NATIONAL LEVEL WORKSHOP WITH REFERENCE TO SATKHIRA DISTRICT 21
5.0 VRA TOOL EVALUATION 24
6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 30
APPENDICES 31
APPENDIX 1 – QUESTION SET INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF METHOD FOR DATA COLLECTION 32
APPENDIX 2 – EXAMPLE H-FORM USED IN THE WORKSHOP 34
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
4
1.0 Background
Bangladesh is extremely vulnerable to the impact of climate change. The global warming has
been posing threat to Bangladesh by increasing the probability of the extreme events like flood,
drought, cyclone, tidal surges leaving the people to a vulnerable situation. In course of time the
mortality and morbidity has been increasing with destruction properties like communication
infrastructure, houses, service facilities, infrastructure, agricultural productivity etc. and creating
long term impact on livelihood parameters namely food, health, education, shelter and security.
The livelihood of peoples of Bangladesh is inseparably mixed with water economically and
culturally. The recent days the country has been experiencing the deterioration water quality
and availability with a variable degree considering the season and geophysical location. The
surface water has been becoming contaminated because of wide spread disposal of industrial
effluent, fertilizer runoff and human wastes and the ground water has been becoming
contaminated naturally with arsenic, iron, salinity, manganese. The surface, ground and rain
water has been becoming gradually unavailable in some area which has been increasing the
possibility of drought and plenty of water creating flood and water logging on other parts of the
country. The primary climatic parameters like temperature, rainfall and humidity have been
changing its historical distribution considering the seasons and increasing in its magnitude over
the years resulting in increasing the frequency of extreme events like flood, storm, drought, tidal
surges etc. These extreme events have been destroying the properties of the people and
deteriorating the water quality chemically and biologically and availability leaving the people to a
vulnerable situation.
Apart from the other use of water the most important use of water is drinking and cooking
essentially and significantly related with health. The increasing trend of the extreme events,
temperature, rainfall etc. due to climate change and its variability have been impacting the
drinking and cooking water critically interms of both quantity and quality. The impacts of reduced
quantity and poor quality of drinking and cooking water on health are evident in many areas of
the country and are diverse and are highly dependent on the geophysical location. It include
direct health related impacts such as diarrhoea, adverse pregnancy outcomes, livelihood and
less direct or indirect impacts related to changing food preparation and practices, hygiene,
sanitation and social changes associated with migration.
In response to these current impacts of climate change on water quality and quantity and the
recognition that climate change will increase these impacts in the future, many agencies have
implemented WASH focussed projects in different areas of the country. The extent to which the
diversity of WASH projects has reduced vulnerability to climate change and variability is largely
unknown. The UNDP has developed a participatory community based tool for the assessment
of the vulnerability reduction (VRA).1 It is designed and devised to measure the changing
1 UNDP Working Paper (December 2008): A Guide to the Vulnerability Reduction Assessment, Andrew Crane Droesch, Nickey //Gaseb,
Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, Andre Mershon, Katiella Mai, Moussa, Dale Rankine, Alejandro Santos
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
5
climate vulnerabilities of communities, and to be comparable across vastly different projects,
regions, and contexts, making it possible to determine if a given project is successful or
unsuccessful in reducing climate change risks. The VRA can be compared to a guided
participatory rural appraisal (PRA), focusing on community perceptions of vulnerability to climate
change and capacity to adapt. It tool includes both quantitative and qualitative measures of
vulnerability, including adaptive capacity and piloted in two highly vulnerable coastal areas of
Bangladesh. This vulnerability reduction assessment report provides an initial assessment of a
tool regarding its application and represents the situation of the vulnerabilities and adaptation
capacity of the communities in the respective geographic location.
2.0 Overview and Objectives
The World Health Organization (WHO) Bangladesh Country Office has been implementing a
wide range of climate change, health and WASH related projects and programmes supported by
different donor agencies and WHO itself with a view to develop a National Climate Change and
Health Adaptation Plan for Bangladesh. Among these project "Building adaptation to climate
change in health in least developed countries through resilient WASH' funded by DFID was
notable and an initiative was under this project to conduct a baseline vulnerability assessment
by using the VRA tool previously jointly developed by UNDP, GEF and WHO. The Vulnerability
Reduction Assessment (VRA) tool provides a mechanism to follow up the results of projects by
following some preset indicators that measures the reduction in vulnerability and adaptive
capacity. The VRA is a form of Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA), focusing on "health
decision-makers" perceptions of health sector vulnerability to climate change, and resilience or
capacity to adapt. It was designed to be applied at a variety of levels, from national to local, to
capture the diversity of stakeholder's experiences and knowledge. The tool can be used at the
beginning, in the middle and at the end of a project period for better understanding of the project
impacts on the ground as mentioned by the author of the VRA.
The vulnerability reduction assessment indicators are organised into four key categories namely
description and assessment of current vulnerability; future vulnerability; description and
assessment of current adaptation/risk management projects and strategies; and description and
assessment of the health (and other) system‟s capacity to adapt in the current environment and
into the future. The guidance tool of VRA recommended a series of closed-ended questions with
supportive qualitative components in order to generate a numerical score(s) for each project at
each stage during a project‟s implementation. However, the objectives of the VRA are:
1. To test the tool including the developed questions, methodology and scoring system for
understanding, ambiguity, applicability to the different contexts and specificity for answering
the purpose of the tool
2. To use the VRA tool to generate information from the communities where a project is already
implemented or where a project may be implemented in the future
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
6
3.0 Methodology
The project methodology is summarized and presented in Fig. 1 and composed of three key
phases namely Phase 1 includes preparation of set of questions, testing and refinement, field
site identification; Phase 2 field activities included data collection through workshop and Phase
3 includes scoring and preliminary tool evaluation.
Review of VRA
Guideline document
Development of questionnaire for
local, distinct and National level
Pretesting of the
question
Identification of
field sites
Finalization of the
questions and
scoring
National Stakeholders
workshop
Have WASH and Climate
change related projects
No WASH and Climate
change related projects
Environmental Health
Unit, WHO
Shyamnagar upazila of
Satkhira District
Mathbaria Upazila of
Pirojpur District
Workshop at Upazila and
Community level
Workshop at
Community level Workshop at
Upazila Level
VRA Score VRA Score VRA Score VRA Score
PH
AS
E 1
P
HA
SE
2
PH
AS
E 3
H Form
Fig 1: An overview of the vulnerability reduction assessment methodology
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
7
3.1 Phase 1 – Question Design and Pre-Test
The VRA team (CEPH, Griffith University) developed a series of questions for local, district and
national level decision-makers and stakeholders and designed a workshop format for pre-testing
of the tool after analysing the guidance document for the VRA considering its scope and
objective. The developed questions was then tested in-person with the WHO project team and
some national WASH sector stakeholders in October 2013, with a particular focus on the
structure of the questions, scoring scales, response options, understanding about the questions
among the intended variety of audiences and the number of questions. Considering the results
of the pre-testing, the number of questions in the set was reduced, scoring system was refined
and wording for some questions was modified.
3.2 Phase 2 – Application in the Field
3.2.1 Identified Field Sites
Following discussion with professionals from the Environmental Health Unit (EHU) of the WHO
Bangladesh Country Office, the project team
identified some areas of Khulna and Barisal
division in the south-west and southern part of
Bangladesh respectively. The Matbharia Upazila of
Pirojpur district was chosen as a baseline site as
no WASH and climate change projects currently
existed in the area. Shyamnagar Upazila of
Satkhira district was chosen as a mid-project site
because a WASH and climate change related
project run by Water Aid was mid-way through
implementation here.
3.2.2 Workshop Tool (H form and questionnaire)
The final question sets were developed and selected for national, sub-district and community
levels based on the project objectives and the results from the pre-test. Questions were
developed by considering the four categories of assessment as outlined in the VRA guidance
document:
Component A
Assessing current vulnerability: This component is designed to seek responses and
scoring on the current impacts of climate change with a particular focus on water and health.
It focussed on the exposure and sensitivity components of vulnerability and included
questions related to:
o Why is this particular community vulnerable?
o Who is most vulnerable?
o Are supporting systems (including health) vulnerable?
Fig. 2: The VRA Team is visiting the field sites
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
8
Component B
Assessing future risk and vulnerability: Participants were asked to comment about future
risk and vulnerability with a particular focus on water, health and systems response capacity
in the context of a simplified, but nonetheless potentially realistic scenario. This scenario
was a doubling of extreme events and an increase in sea level rise. It included
questions/issues related to water impacts of this future scenario, health impacts of this
future scenario and the capacity of support systems (including health) to respond effectively
to this scenario.
Component C
Formulating an adaptation strategy: This component was designed to ask for comments
(and score) on issues of current adaptation including the effectiveness of existing projects or
actions and barriers to adapting. It also included a question about common vision and
awareness of climate change impacts across agencies – this was considered an important
starting question to identify common understanding and responses to this critical issue.
Component D
Continuing the adaptation process: This component included discussion and questions
about adaptation actions and ability to sustain them. It asked about sustainability to respond
by governments at different levels and the community.
Following careful consideration, workshop formats for each question were categorized as either:
i) group discussion, ii) group response using the standard „H form‟, or iii) individual response
using the standard „H-form‟ (refer to Appendix 1 for the entire question set). A group discussion
was considered necessary at critical points within the four categories of questions to set the
scenario. Group responses were thought to be useful for key questions that would require all
stakeholders to share their response and reasoning on a particular question and individual
questions were included (aggregated by the facilitating team following the workshop) when it
was considered that participants may not speak frankly in a group discussion and to give
participants an opportunity to provide individual input on perhaps more sensitive issues.
Each group and individual question was inserted into the „H-form‟ format as provided in the
guidance document with little modification from the original concept. Appendix 2 shows the way
in which the H-Form was presented to participants.
The question responses were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from „strongly agree‟ (1) to
„strongly disagree‟ (5) or „not effective at all‟ (1) to „very effective‟ (5). In the scale, „can‟t
say/neutral‟ was rated as a 3. Scales were designed such that a rating of 1 indicated either high
vulnerability or low adaptive capacity with the overall goal following application of the tool over a
project‟s lifespan to increase the score (to a maximum of 5) indicating that vulnerability is
reduced.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
9
3.2.3 Workshop Process
A total of four workshops were conducted over a five day period consisting two workshops in the
Satkhira district and one at a community site Chingri Khali in Shyamnagar upazila level. One
workshop was conducted in the Matbharia sub-district in Pirojpur district with a mixture of
community members and upazila representatives. Community workshops were well attended
with a broad group of participants from different corners of the society. The VRA team members
(from CEPH, GU) facilitated each workshop. A WHO staff member participated in each of the
workshops and explained the project and its context.
Facilitators introduced the project and its purpose and clearly explained participant roles. Then
each of the questions was presented for explanation from each of the group. Scores were
sought from each participant with the reasons for their scoring identified and recorded.
Wherever possible, participants were asked to provide evidence for their statements by
providing data or stories/examples.
Questions (including the H-form) were presented visually through the use of electronic projector
in each of the workshop but in the community workshop at Chingri Khali a verbal discussion was
considered as the best option due to lack of electricity, language and time restrictions. Group
responses were recorded via audio-recording and manual note-taking to ensure that no
information was missed. Not all questions were asked for all workshops. This was influenced by
the extent of group feedback (for example, some material overlapped and was already covered
in previous questions), by the stage of project implementation (some questions could not be
answered as there were no water related projects implemented) and timing restrictions.
3.3 Phase 3 – Scoring
A score was calculated by multiplying the number of respondents for each nominated scale
(from 1 to 5) for each question followed by summation for each scale, and then dividing by the
number of participants (as per Equation 1). For the category of „can‟t say/neutral‟ which was
nominally classified as 3 in the scale (1 to 5), individual scores were ignored and so the
denominator was reduced. A total scores were summed for each sub-component and then
divided by the total number of questions responded to for each component.
Equation 1:
VRA score=∑ (sIn+……..sini)/N
Where:
s= nominated scale (i= 1 to 5)
n=number of respondents for scale i
N=total number of respondents
The total VRA score was then assigned for each workshop based on averaging across the 4
categories (see Equation 2). A low score indicates high vulnerability and/or low adaptive
capacity. It was expected that in the area where a project had already been implemented, that
the scores would be higher.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
10
Equation 2
Total Vulnerability = score on {Assessing current vulnerability + Assessing future risk and
vulnerability + Formulating an adaptation strategy + Continuing the adaptation process}/4
This method provides a minimum score of 1 (most vulnerable) and a maximum score of 5 (least
vulnerable, indicating vulnerability is reduced). However, for ease of interpretation the overall
score can be classified into 3 broad categories:
Highest vulnerability: score of 1-2
Moderate vulnerability: >2-4
Lowest vulnerability:> 4-5
4.0 WASH and Health and Climate Change Vulnerability
4.1 Overall VRA score
A summary of the scores obtained from each of the workshops itemised for each component of
the VRA tool is presented in Table 1. Necessary caution should be exercised when interpreting
these numbers as the sample sizes were low. The comments made to support the reported
scores and/or the discussion points noted provide valuable information, hence the quantitative
scores should be considered in the context of the qualitative information collected.
Table 1: Summary of the VRA scores
Questions
Shyamnagar Sub-district
n=13
Shyamnagar Community
n= 9
Matbharia Sub-district/
Community n=13
National (with reference to
Satkhira) n=8
A. Current Vulnerability
A5. There are currently significant problems with water quality in URBAN area (Strongly agree=1; Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1.25
A6. There are currently significant problems with water quality in this area (Strongly agree=1; Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral)3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
A7 These water quality problems are currently having an impact on the health of the community (consider direct disease, extreme events and social impacts) (Strongly agree=1; Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
A8 This geographical area/community is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral)3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
11
Questions
Shyamnagar Sub-district
n=13
Shyamnagar Community
n= 9
Matbharia Sub-district/
Community n=13
National (with reference to
Satkhira) n=8
A9 There are specific populations in this community/geographical area that are particularly vulnerable to climate change (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral)3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
A11 The health system (eg. service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, financing, leadership and governance) in this area is vulnerable to climate change? (individual) (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1.1 1.38
Total A 5/5=1 5/5=1 5.1/5= 1.05 6.63/6=1.11
B. Future Vulnerability
B1 If this area experienced a doubling of extreme events and an increase in sea level in the future this would be catastrophic for this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral)3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
B2 There would be major impacts of this scenario on water supply and quality for this scenario (consider both types of climate change above) (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral)3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 1 1 1
B3 There would be major impacts on health (direct and indirect) associated with this scenario (Strongly agree=1; Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
1.15 1 1 1
B4 The capacity of systems in this area to respond effectively to this scenario is limited (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
3.5 (8 respondents
neutral) 1 1 1
B5 The capacity of the health system to respond effectively to this scenario is limited (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2; Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
1.14 (4 respondents
neutral) 1 1.36 1.33
Total B 7.79/5=1.56 5/5=1 5.36/5=1.07 5.33/5=1.07
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
12
Questions
Shyamnagar Sub-district
n=13
Shyamnagar Community
n= 9
Matbharia Sub-district/
Community n=13
National (with reference to
Satkhira) n=8
C. Adaptive capacity – existing projects/policy
C1 There is a lack of common vision and awareness about the impacts of climate change amongst all agencies in this area? (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
1.5 1.38 1.43
C3 Has this project __________been effective in managing the impact of climate change? (Not effective at all=1; A little effective=2; Neutral/can‟t say= 3; Effective=4; Very effective=5)
1.71 (3 respondents
neutral) 5
2 (5 neutral respondents)
1
C5 Has strategy _______ been effective in managing the impact of climate change? (include as many of these as there are actions/strategies/policies) (Not effective at all=1; A little effective=2; Neutral/can‟t say= 3; Effective=4; Very effective=5)
- all respondents
neutral
Total C 3.21/2=1.6 5 3.38/2=1.69* 2.43/2=1.21
D. Sustaining adaptive capacity
D2. It will be difficult for the national/provincial level authorities to sustain the water projects/strategies implemented in this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
1 2 (6 neutral)
D3 It will be difficult for the local level authorities to sustain the water projects/strategies implemented in this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
5 5 1 1.33
D4 There are limited opportunities available to increase the effectiveness of the water projects/actions/strategies that exist in this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
D5. Government health agencies (but not only the Health Ministry) have a limited capacity to manage ongoing implementation of water projects/ strategies/actions in this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor
- all respondents
neutral 3.86
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
13
Questions
Shyamnagar Sub-district
n=13
Shyamnagar Community
n= 9
Matbharia Sub-district/
Community n=13
National (with reference to
Satkhira) n=8
disagree (neutral) 3; Disagree=4; Strongly disagree=5)
D6 The community has a limited role in effective and sustainable implementation of water projects/strategies/actions in this area (Strongly agree=1;Agree-2;Neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 3;Disagree=4;Strongly disagree=5)
5 5
Total D 5/1=5 5 7/3=2.3 12.19/4=3.05
TOTAL VRA SCORES (1.0+1.56+1.
6+5.0)/4 = 2.29
(1.0+1.0+5.0+5.0)/4
= 3
(1.05+1.07+1.69+2.3)/4 =1.53
(1.11+1.07+1.21+3.05)/4
=1.61
It is clear from Table 1 that both the target communities illustrated a very significant level of
physical and geographical vulnerability as results are heavily skewed to a low value. Not
surprisingly future vulnerability was also scored very low, indicating high vulnerability across all
workshop groups. The upazila workshop at Shyamnagar scored higher, with comments
suggesting that they were more confident about the authority's ability to respond to the
projected scenarios provided in the workshop (eg. higher sea level and more frequent cyclones)
in the future.
As well as identifying existing vulnerability, the
tool is designed to identify current and future
adaptive capacity. A question about shared
vision and awareness about climate change
impacts was asked in this question. A low score
across all workshops for this question was
recorded. The reason most commonly given for
this low score was a lack of coordination
between agencies and organizations.
The Shyamnagar community overwhelmingly
expressed their satisfaction with the effectiveness of the existing WASH project, scoring even
higher than that for the sub-district level. This is a positive sign that the existing project has
been making a difference within the community. There was little confidence reported in the
capacity of the health system to respond to existing vulnerability or future risk, with comments
citing lack of personnel, lack of policy and guidance and lack of infrastructure considering the
health perspective. Interestingly, in both areas, no specific health projects, actions or policies
related to climate change were identified.
Fig. 2: A Pond Sand Filter in the assessment sites
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
14
The capability of the local authority to sustain a/the project implemented differed and there was
a stark contrast between the two communities of Shyamnagar and Matbharia. The Shyamnagar
sub-district workshop and the respective community workshops strongly considered that the
local level authorities could sustain the existing project while the national workshop score
indicated strong disagreement with this in the context of the Satkhira district. The Matbharia
community also strongly disagreed that local authorities could sustain existing projects. This
difference between the two communities of two different upazila within two districts might be
because of the implementation of the WASH project in Shyamnagar upazila which provided
confidence in the community and local decision-makers to sustain local projects. All groups
strongly agreed that the community had a role in the sustainability of WASH projects.
According to the categorisation on page 12, the overall findings of the vulnerability assessment
indicated that Matbharia could be classified as the highest category of vulnerability and is more
vulnerable than Shyamnagar upazila (classified as a moderate vulnerability category). This
finding is not surprising considering the absence of any existing WASH projects and the
perceived high vulnerability of the area and its populations (as reported by the community
workshop).
4.2 Workshops at Satkhira District in Khulna Division
4.2.1 Upazila Level Workshop Findings at Shyamnagar Upazila
The sub-district workshop was composed of 13
participants (including 2 women) which included a
teacher, a journalist, a Union Parishad member, a
representative from the Department of Public
Health Engineering and the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, community
representatives working in disaster preparedness,
representatives from the local NGO (working on
the WASH and climate change) and a
representative of a Women‟s organization. It took
approximately two hours to conduct the workshop.
VRA Tool Component A: Assessing current vulnerability
Climate change is certainly being felt in this community with a high awareness about the
vulnerability and a number of diverse impacts identified by the group. These include migration,
loss of work due to salinity, less rainfall, ponds not holding water, changes in food (eg. eating
more from outside of home, less productivity of rice due to saline water intrusion and changing
foods that require high water input for cooking, water consumption and hygiene habits due to
reduced water availability, increased distances to get safe water and saline contamination of
tube well water. Specifically impacts of climate change on drinking water included reduction in
choices for safe water, long distances to find safe water, increased hygiene challenges. In
Fig. 3: Photograph of workshop at Shyamnagar
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
15
addition, social consequences such as, permanent migration and difficulties for eligible young
men to attract a wife due to perceived burden on women in these communities were reported. In
the community, individuals collect their drinking water from tube wells or Pond Sand Filters
(PSF), using pond water for household supplies and rainwater for business and agriculture. The
dry season was identified as the worst time of the year for quality and supply.
The subsequent self-reported health impacts included gastric irritation (they indicated that 98%
have gastric problems), increased skin disease, increased stroke, increased use of medicines
(the area has the highest use of medicines in the Khulna division), uterus cancer and
appendicitis. The indirect health impacts identified were increased fertilizer use, children
drowning due to being left unattended while mother was collecting water and hair falling out due
to use of salty water. Women and children were identified as the most vulnerable groups to
climate change.
The supporting systems that were mentioned as being vulnerable to climate change were
general infrastructure, road and health systems. Disruption of sanitation systems during extreme
events associated with increasing diarrhoeal disease was also mentioned. The community did
not provide any specific comments about the health system capacity. There was complete
consensus in scoring for each of the questions in this section that indicated a high level of
vulnerability to climate change and significant associated impacts (Table 1).
VRA Tool Component B: Assessing future risk and vulnerability
All participants agreed that the projected scenario would be catastrophic in the area and in
particular for water quantity and quality because of a number of existing issues like the shrimp
industry, pond retention and water drainage. However, there were some contradictory views
about resulting impacts on health because a small number of participants mentioned that the
impacts would not be as significant because the health system would be improved in the future.
Most of the participants felt that they couldn‟t say anything about the capacity to respond to the
future risks from a general support systems perspective. Some expressed concerns about the
capacity to respond based on their experience of a lack of coordination between current
projects, inadequate allocation of resources, and insufficient cooperation between government
and NGOs. When questioned about the health systems capacity to respond in the future
scenario, many respondents agreed (strongly or moderately) that the response would be limited
due to lack of hospital staff, lack of a monitoring system, lack of doctors, lack of awareness, lack
of coordination, lack of facilities, lack of drugs, lack of qualified health professionals and lack of
coordination with the government.
VRA Tool Component C: Formulating an adaptation strategy
The majority of the participants either agreed or strongly agreed that there was a lack of
common vision and awareness of climate change impacts in the community providing reasons
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
16
such as the absence of coordination between agencies, lack of commitment for improving the
life of the people, and lack of accountability for delivering programs etc. for the community.
A number of projects were identified related to climate change in the community, with the
elements of infrastructure provision and climate change awareness. For the main Water Aid
project, a majority of participants considered that the project was effective or highly effective in
providing positive responses such as increased awareness and establishment of water sources
during disaster time. Some commented that there was inadequate coverage of the project
across the district, that there was a lack of coordination and the project wasn‟t long term. No
specific climate change and health related projects were identified by the group in this district.
VRA Tool Component D: Continuing the adaptation process
When participants were questioned about "what needed to be done to help the area to cope
with the risk of impact of climate change in the water sector in the future” responses included
community rainwater harvesting, better utilisation of ponds, canal development that would be
accessible to all, community infrastructure for filtration and a pipeline water supply system.
Barriers reported to the above mentioned activities included lack of policy, competing priorities
and focus on agriculture not safe drinking water. From a local level authority perspective,
respondents indicated a high degree of confidence about sustaining the existing projects,
particularly from a community involvement perspective. When questioned about the government
health agencies capacity to manage ongoing implementation of projects, all respondents
indicated a neutral response, though some indicated limited health resources, under-utilization
of resources and limited staff capacity as potential challenges.
4.2.2 Community Level Workshop Findings at Shyamnagar Union
This workshop conducted in Chingra Khali, Sadar union of Shyamnagar upazila consisted of 9
active participants including 4 women and
numerous observers. The group consisted of a
member of the Union Parishad, local leaders,
teachers (college, high school), the Imam,
representatives from the Mother‟s club,
adolescent club, disaster preparedness local
community group and representatives from an
NGO Shushilon (working with Water Aid on the
WASH and Climate Change project). The
workshop took a period of 1 hour and 15
minutes.
VRA Tool Component A: Assessing current vulnerability
The respondents indicated a wide range of noticeable climate change impacts which included
seasons behaving differently (e.g., no summer during summer, spring is not there, no rain
Fig. 4: Photograph of community level workshop at
Chingra Khali, Sadar Union of Shyamnagar upazila
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
17
during monsoon), various types of natural disasters, hygiene issues (can‟t wash hands),
standard of living changes, health, saline water prevailing since Cyclone Aila, long distances for
collecting fresh water (was 3km, now 7km), agriculture (less potato production now, no rice
cultivation, can‟t produce onions), saline water corroding the walls of houses (previously
changed the walls after every 5 years, now every year), saline water impacting toilet structures,
loss of work and education due to illness, farming diversity (only shrimp farming in community
now), no freshwater for domestic animals like cows, impacts of saline water on trees. Other
comments related to the general landscape indicating that there were less leaves on the trees,
the area has been turning into a desert (temperature and salinity), and there were impacts on
livestock.
The specific health impacts reported by the community included disease, early delivery,
menstrual problems, children‟s diarrhoea, kidney disease, less intake of water during
pregnancy, childhood intellectual development, pneumonia, skin disease, gastric problems.
Other indirect health impacts mentioned included lack of diversity of food crops and reduced
food intake, and reduced food preparation (cooking all meals for each day in one session,
where previously they prepared fresh food for every meal). Women, children, disabled and the
elderly were identified as the most vulnerable groups to the impact of climate change.
For drinking water, community members indicated that they must now rely on rainwater and
pond sand filtered water – but they have to collect it from a long way away (7km). Cooking water
is collected from the local pond water and water for agriculture is mainly from rainwater. All of
the community strongly agreed that the area is very vulnerable to climate change impacts and
mentioning that the Sundarban forest has lost large number trees due to the recent cyclones.
From a systems perspective, lack of electricity was identified as a major vulnerability.
There was a complete consensus in scoring for each question for this section as indicated by
the rank of 1. This indicated a high level of vulnerability to climate change and significant
associated impacts (refer to Table 1). The community representatives indicated that all 597
families in the community had the same water quality problems as they identified, citing drinking
water as the common main concern.
VRA Tool Component B: Assessing future risk and vulnerability
All participants strongly agreed that the projected scenario would be catastrophic for the area,
specifically water and health impacts. They also mentioned general issues of increases in
temperature and salinity. The temperature may help to grow plantations but salty water will
inhibit growth. The participants indicated that already the living standard was not good and that
people could not live in this area if the challenging water conditions continued.
The participants indicated that the future scenario would impact their health and living standards
in many ways but that they would prioritise the availability of safe water because it is important
from a health point of view.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
18
All the participants strongly agreed that the capacity of the systems, including the health system
to respond to such a future scenario is limited and is currently unable to cope with the changed
environment. Specific health system vulnerability issues included lack of human resources
including doctors, a limited transport system, facilities located a long way from the community,
general economic situation and limited hospital services (they need access to a comprehensive
hospital).
VRA Tool Component C: Formulating an adaptation strategy
A number of climate change projects were identified by the participants and they included
elements of provision of water supply infrastructure (PSF and rainwater harvesting) and
awareness rising. All participants strongly agreed that the Water Aid project was effective or
highly effective and provided good service delivery. Responses included increased awareness
about climate change, increased access to safe water (the project provided rainwater harvesting
units and PSF) and increased hygiene education. The participants mentioned that before the
commencement of the project they didn‟t have any safe water but now they have.
A union-sponsored sanitation project (i.e. provision of slab rings for toilets) was identified by
participants and they reported that the project had had some success. However the successes
were overshadowed because of salinity which was altering the longevity of the slab rings and
that the supplies provided through the project was less than the demand. The participants of the
workshop mentioned some other small WASH projects that could improve community health,
such as tube well distribution and latrine projects, but they indicated they were not sufficient.
There was also a specific mention of the lack of an organisation involved in improving women‟s
health.
VRA Tool Component D: Continuing the adaptation process
When the participants were asked about what needed to be done to help the people of the area
to cope with the future risks of climate change their responses included: government provision
of piped water, helping people to move away from the area and contributions to rainwater
harvesting. All participants strongly agreed that it would not be difficult to sustain the water
projects/strategies implemented in the area from a local authority perspective. They also
indicated that local authorities need to make the projects sustainable for survival and would
need to continue to raise money to support the projects for operation and maintenance in future.
However, they acknowledged the challenges in finding such funds when they already have to
fund diesel fuel and generators as there is no other electricity supply in the area. They
commented on the current challenges relating to reduced diversity in food supply, lack of
protection, problems for feeding their animals and lack of sweet water fish.
4.3 Upazila Level Workshop Findings at Mathbaria Upazila
This workshop included 13 participants composed of 2 representatives from the upazila
administrative level (Agriculture and Community Medical Officer) representatives from the
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
19
Ministry of Agriculture, a Community Doctor, the Union Parishad Chairman, two school
teachers, a social leader, a university lecturer and local NGO representatives. The workshop
took a period of 2 hours.
VRA Tool Component A: Assessing current vulnerability
Participants provided an extensive list of climate
change impacts in their community which included
cyclones, increase in sea level, increasing river
bed height leading to flooding, trees dying due to
salinity, livestock death, fruits not available,
decreasing cultivable land, decline in crop yields
(rice, coconut, betel nut), salinity impacts on
drinking water quality, health impacts, sanitation
impacts (degradation of ring slabs due to salt) and
increases in fertilizer use. They also commented
on the changing patterns of seasons - there used
to be 6 seasons but now only 4 distinct seasons.
Migration has increased as well as changing of
food habits because of unlimited availability of sweet water.
All respondents strongly agreed that the impact of climate change on water is a major problem
in the area. Water quality and availability have impacted on food, agriculture and health. Deep
tube wells are drying up or being contaminated with saline water and as a result, the untreated
pond water is the main source of drinking water. Participants commented that they had no
choice but to drink untreated „sweet‟ pond water due to quality and limited quantity of deep tube
well water. They noted that were some PSF but they were limited. The rainwater or pond water
is used for other household purposes and river and canal water are used for agricultural
purposes. In the dry season the problem is increased because of increased saline water
intrusion. Seasonal changes have reduced the total amount of rainfall in the monsoon period.
The participants also commented on the impact of disasters on the Sundarban forest that
flooding is now more widespread, river flow has declined, and salinity is reaching further into the
interior areas of the coastal belt.
All participants strongly agreed that there were significant health impacts related to climate
change and they reported a number of health related problems which included heat stroke,
difficulty in breathing, skin disease, diarrhoea, cholera, kidney disease, psychological impacts,
worm infections as examples. All participants strongly agreed that their area was vulnerable to
climate change because of its low elevation, a high reliance on predictable seasonal
temperature and rainfall for agriculture, poor transport system and river bank erosion. The
participants also mentioned that cyclones SIDR and AILA damaged the Sundarban making the
area more vulnerable to coastal winds and storm surges because of reduced physical
Fig. 5: Photograph of upazila level workshop at
Mathbaria Upazila
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
20
protection. Furthermore, the area had become vulnerable to frequent flooding because of the
damaged polders on the riverbank. All the participants strongly agreed that old people, women,
pregnant women, children, farmers, fishermen and disabled people are most vulnerable, along
with domestic and forest animals. Systems such as transport (roads), housing infrastructure,
animals, health, ecological, agricultural, food and economic activities were identified as being
vulnerable to climate change.
All but one participant strongly agreed that the health system was vulnerable to the impact of
climate change. The participants cited examples such as waterborne disease due to scarcity of
safe water, water logging, salinity, cultivation problems, increased temperatures and
malnutrition. The health system was also vulnerable to address the situation because of
insufficient doctors and health workers, limited medical infrastructure, lack of medical
equipment, poor communication and weak transportation systems. There was almost complete
consensus among the participants in scoring for each question for this section with each rating a
1. Only one of the participants ranked the health system‟s vulnerability as a 2, which indicated
the high (rather than very high) level of vulnerability (Fig. 1).
VRA Tool Component B: Assessing future risk and vulnerability
All the respondents strongly agreed that the projected scenario would be catastrophic for the
area especially considering the water and health aspects. They cited general issues such as
sea level rise, increasing floods, increases in cyclones and tidal surges, riverbed elevation,
infrastructure damage, loss of animals, ecological imbalance and reproductive health of women.
They mentioned that some of the families were already moving further inland (eg. 10 km) due to
river bank erosion or planning to move away, but they indicated they were worried that in the
future there will be no place to go. The disaster component of future risk would also lead to the
increased malnutrition and food security issues. The participants predicted that the salinity will
increase and that will lead to the exacerbation of the problems with both the ground and surface
water. The situation will also worsen due to the large population growth in the area and this will
lead to increased demand for water. Other issues mentioned in the workshop related to the
weakened health of men and women due to less nutrition and concerns about the prevalence of
a weaker generation in the near future. The participants also mentioned the impacts of cyclones
on deforestation and the importance of trees to maintain clean air.
All strongly agreed that the capacity of different systems to respond to the future scenario
provided in the workshop is limited due to reasons such as lack of awareness, weakness of
sheltering system, inadequate dams to hold water, less resources and weak transport systems,
weak health system, and weak communication system. The majority of the respondents also
strongly agreed that the capacity of the health system to respond is limited because of lack of
doctors, cyclone centre, health education, poor communication system, hospital, transport,
equipment and good quality drugs.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
21
VRA Tool Component C: Formulating an adaptation strategy
There was a strong consensus in this group that there was a lack of common vision and
awareness among all agencies about climate change impacts in this area. Issues reported
included lack of coordination, lack of finance, less supply than demand, political instability,
bureaucracy, lack of coordination amongst NGOs, insufficient government coordination of NGO
activity, wanting to acquire individual credit and wish to attract foreign funds.
There were a number of projects related to climate change issues identified in the area
including: development of a warning system for disasters, awareness raising, an emergency
preparedness and recovery restoration project (ECRRP), FAO world bank projects, farmers
projects and electricity projects. There were no specific water projects or specific health projects
identified by participants that related to climate change.
The group was asked to respond about the effectiveness of one of the projects named as
“agriculture and climate change project” that had been implemented by Agricultural ministry of
Bangladesh Government. As this project was not known to all, more than half of the participants
mentioned that they couldn‟t comment on the effectiveness of the project. Of those that did,
there were divergent views. 2 agreed the project was effective (it had led to an increased crop
diversity and changed cropping systems, introduced new agricultural machinery, established
farmers groups and training, improved awareness) and 1 disagreed that the project was
effective (not sustainable – more production, but more waste). .
VRA Tool Component D: Continuing the adaptation process
When questioned regarding what needed to be done in the area to cope with the future risks
associated with climate change, the responses included: the need for government‟s attention
and response to repairing and building the embankments, resourcing reserve tanks and water
treatment plants construction, investment in rainwater harvesting systems, more pond
excavation, improved drainage systems, sluice gates repair and canal re-excavation. Barriers
cited for conducting these activities included economic issues, area remoteness, maintenance
of communication, transport, human resources, political instability, failure to implement, lack of
coordination and corruption.
There was a consensus (strongly agree) among the participants that the national and local level
authorities could not ensure the sustainability of the projects implemented („referring to
agricultural project‟) because there was little ownership by the government. However, all
participants strongly agreed that the community would have a strong role in effective
implementation of projects in the area indicating that community involvement was essential to
ensure sustainability.
4.4 National Level Workshop with Reference to Satkhira District
The national level workshop included 9 active participants comprising of representatives from
WHO Bangladesh, Department of Health and Engineering (DPHE), Department of Environment
(DOE), Policy Support Unit (PSU) of Local Government Division, NGO professionals from Water
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
22
Aid, a UNICEF consultant and private sector
water consultants. The workshop took a period
of 2 hours. Participants were asked to consider
the situation in Satkhira district.
The participants highlighted that the water
issues in that area were very critical. The
issues mentioned by them included saline
water intrusion into ponds, permeability
reduction of pond beds, variability in water
quantity, less rainfall in dry seasons, and
challenges associated with rainwater
harvesting (e.g. storage limitations, water
quality impacts). Other issues particularly indicated by the participants in relation to water were
lack of big scale projects, water quality deterioration, reduced utility of tube wells, increasing
salinity following cyclone SIDR and increased evaporation (related to temperature increases).
All participants strongly agreed that there were a significant number of water related issues
though there were slightly different views offered for rural and urban supplies. In urban areas
water treatment systems existed which reduce the vulnerability (hence increased the overall
score) as compared to rural areas where water contamination was a significant problem and
questions of sustainability remained.
All participants strongly agreed that there were significant impacts of climate change on health
in the area including specific diseases such as diarrhoea, hypertension, pregnancy problems
and blue babies. Due to the salinity problem, mental and social health of people in the area was
also affected. All strongly agreed that communities in those areas were particularly vulnerable to
the impact of climate change because of frequent extreme events, infrastructure losses
(including sanitation), economic burden and water issues impacting on daily life (need to collect
water from far away). The participants also mentioned and strongly agreed that populations
vulnerable to impacts of climate change included women, children and those who were socio-
economically disadvantaged.
Systems identified as vulnerable to impact of climate change in those areas included fisheries,
water, food, transport, education, biodiversity and biological systems. Around half of the
respondents strongly agreed that the health system was vulnerable to climate change in those
areas. They cited reasons such as lack of financing, lack of incentives to maintain workforce in
local areas, poor infrastructure, potential damage from climate change, health service not
designed to address climate change, health workers reluctant to work in these areas due to
remoteness, low health coverage is low, low accessibility, a poor service mechanism and
increased impacts in the future (eg. extreme events).
Fig. 6: Photograph of national level workshop
EHU WHO
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
23
VRA Tool Component B: Assessing future risk and vulnerability
All strongly agreed that the stated scenario would be catastrophic for these areas and there
would be major impacts associated with water and health. The reasons behind these were
limited resources and capacity for adaptation. They also indicated that migration of communities
from rural to urban areas was already occurring. The participants also mentioned that under the
projected condition, surface water stresses would also increase.
When questioned about the capacity of systems to respond to this scenario, more than half of
the participants agreed that the systems could respond, though a small number indicated that
the capacity is limited. Those who didn‟t strongly agree indicated that there was some capacity
in existing systems at the moment. However, in contrast, the majority of the participants
strongly agreed that the health systems capacity would be limited because of infrastructure
damage, increased disease burden and communication problems and inadequate medical
facilities, limited human resources and logistics; inadequate current policy and challenges to the
medicine supply chain and supply issues.
VRA Tool Component C: Formulating an adaptation strategy
Response to the question regarding lack of vision and awareness was mixed though most
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. The reasons for responses indicated there was
no uniform vision and awareness, that different organisations were working with their own
objectives and visions, a lack of understanding of climate change impact, knowledge gaps, lack
of evidence exists in different agencies, need for a common understanding, need common tools,
working in different sectors (agriculture, water). Some indicated that while a common vision is
missing, awareness is evident.
Participants indicated a breadth of projects occurring in the Satkhira area including: GIZ, CCPH
Unit project, ADB assisted rural water supply, coastal infrastructure projects and all strongly
agreed that the WASH and Climate change project of Water Aid was effective. Other activities
noted included eco-housing (including rainwater harvesting) and an ADB water supply and
sanitation project. The group also identified some planned health projects including the CCHPU
water supply and sanitation project, ICDDR,B research in coastal areas and a reverse osmosis
project (Japan Aid).
VRA Tool Component D: Continuing the adaptation process
Future actions taken by government so that the communities in the area would be able to cope
with the impacts of climate change, particularly with water issues included: better allocation
identified through the Water Act and the water resource management legislation for ensuring
adequate supplies of water and subsequent planning to balance land use (especially the issue
of shrimp culture). The government should also take initiatives to preserve sweet water, provide
a piped water supply system, initiating more research and development activities and conduct
more national level planning.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
24
Most of the participants could not mention anything about the difficulties for national or district
level authorities for upholding the sustainability of water projects in the area, but some of them
agreed that it would be difficult. The reasons illustrated were lack of coordination, political
commitment and resources. Those who couldn‟t say indicated that there were some good
systems in place and existing good governance and that there would be an expectation of
transparency. Others suggested it would depend on who implemented the projects.
When asked about ability for local level authorities (either Union or Upazila) to ensure
sustainability of water projects in the area, all strongly agreed or agreed it would be difficult. The
participants cited a number of reasons namely centralized governance system with little
authority to local government, lack of vertical integration, lack of consistency of policy, lack of
community empowerment and a top-down approach. When specifically asked about health
agency's capacity, most disagreed or strongly disagreed that the health agencies have a limited
capacity to manage the ongoing implementation of water project in the region suggesting that
health has a potentially strong regulatory role. All of them strongly disagreed that the community
had a limited role in sustainable implementation of water projects in the area, strongly stating
that the community needs to be involved in every step of the implementation process so that
community ownership is developed.
5.0 VRA Tool Evaluation
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the key issues identified following the application of the question set
and the workshop in 4 settings in Bangladesh. Table 2 summarizes the issues encountered with
the developed question set and makes recommendations for modification and Table 3 provides
an evaluation of the workshop format and process issues and recommendations for future
workshops.
Table 2: Question design issues and recommendations for modification
Findings Recommendation
A. Assessing
current vulnerability
1. Questions easy to understand, with
significant input provided by participants.
2. Some overlap in responses to questions,
reflecting differing perceptions,
understanding of concepts
Keep question set with limited
modification.
B. Assessing future
risk and
vulnerability
3. The questions relating to the health
systems capacity was difficult to describe
to the participants especially the – but a
crucial part about understanding health
vulnerability
3. Keep questions about both general
system's capacity and health specific
system's capacity but need to be
described the adaptive capacity to
the audience before seeking
answers and provide example to
remove ambiguity
C. Formulating an
adaptation strategy
4. Question asking about common vision
and awareness should be split into two
4. Effective adaptation will require
strong coordination of stakeholders
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
25
Findings Recommendation
different issues separately
5. Lack of consistency in response relating
to barriers to adaptation only and partly
discussed by some the respondents
who have a shared understanding of
impacts and a common vision for
responding. Make two separate
questions for these two issues
separately.
5. Make an explicit question or
discussion point about barriers of
adaptation to climate change,
exploring more comprehensively
technical, financial, administrative,
policy categories etc.
D. Continuing the
adaptation process
6. Difficulties in understanding questions
about „level of authority‟
7. Some questions complex and include a
few components
6. Explain more clearly the rationale for
this question by explaining that part
of the governance system which has
the most ability to sustain the
adaptation.
7. Try to simplify questions without
losing intent and/or provide
additional explanations to
supplement.
OVERALL
8. Qualitative questions very useful for
identifying key issues for the target area
(background) and for understanding
reasons for responses but took a large
amount of time.
9. For some questions many answered 3
(can‟t say/don‟t know) but this response
can‟t be used in calculation of score for
the question.
10. It is important to capture this neutral
type of response as it may suggest that
there is limited communication between
key stakeholders within communities/
sub-districts/nationally about existing
projects etc.
11. In an attempt, to ensure that all extreme
values were consistently in the same
direction, some questions included
double negatives making them
challenging for target audience to
respond to and hence potentially
reducing question validity
8. Maintain a mix of qualitative group
questions (non-scored) to help set
the scene (context) at appropriate
9. Make „can‟t say/don‟t know‟ option
category 5 or 6 and use either a
nominal scale from 1-4 or 1-5 to
include in VR score. Explain the
question by citing examples
10. Try to ensure that subsequent
workshops include the same
participants so knowledge within
the group grows.
11. Simplify double negative questions
and if this means a 1 can mean the
opposite extremes for different
questions, then caution needs to be
applied when calculating scores.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
26
Table 3 – Workshop process issues and recommendations
Issue Recommendation
1. Spent significant time on qualitative discussion,
sharing ideas, explaining perspectives and
providing evidence, some overlap of questions but
useful for consolidation and context provision.
1.1 Extend time of workshop to provide more time
for this general discussion of concepts and
issues
1.2 Maintain the amount of material collected on
general impacts, issues and reasons for
scoring decisions
2. Participant's representation in workshops generally
included a good mix of stakeholders, though there
was limited health representation. This is
problematic as the stated objective of the VRA tool
is to enhance „health decision-making‟ and more
depth in reasoning may have been provided with
the inclusion of more health representatives.
2.1 Strive to ensure a balanced mix of health
representation and other stakeholder input
into all levels of workshops
2.2 Encourage female participation in future
workshops to ensure more balanced gender
representation
2.3 Strive to ensure the same representatives are
involved in subsequent workshops to ensure
consistency and continuity of feedback
3. Diversity of workshops (diverse experiences and
knowledge) useful for triangulation of responses
and to obtain different perspectives.
3.1 Continue to ensure a balance of workshop
types as they provide useful, but different
information about the target issues (eg. at a
minimum: community, sub-district and
National)
4. A lot of workshop time was taken up in
Components A and B, with lesser time in C and D
due to time restrictions, absence of projects to
discuss (Matbharia) and possibly a lack of
understanding of some of the questions.
4.1 Note that in subsequent workshops much of
the material on vulnerability covered in A and
B will not be new and so more time should be
allocated to Sections C and D as project(s)
are implemented.
5. Use of electronic media (eg. to project questions)
reduced the time taken during workshops.
5.1 In the absence of electronic media, allow for
more time to provide question sets in written
form (on paper or whiteboard).
6. Having a native Bangla facilitator was critical to
ensuring good understanding of task and
questions.
6.1 Ensure project team has a native speaker
facilitator
6.2 Consider translating questions into Bangla for
all levels of workshops and including
explanatory notes for more challenging
concepts.
General issues of note:
This tool is based on perception of stakeholders though evidence was sought as much as
possible to justify statements; most evidence was in the form of stories. Very little
surveillance or report data was provided (or available) to justify statements made. The focus
of the tool is climate change and as highlighted by some of the National level participants,
some of the impacts identified by workshop respondents in the community could also be
attributed to other activities such as shrimp farming, engineering responses etc.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
27
Consistent across the community and sub-district workshops was the absence of knowledge
of any climate change and health-related activities. This may indicate that there is no specific
climate change and health work occurring in those communities or the participants were not
aware of such work.
Managing time in the workshop is very difficult for getting proper feed back. Most of the
workshops went longer than the recommended time. This is mainly attributed to the nature of
the task and the amount of information sought combined with the significant interest of
participants in sharing experiences, information and reasons for their statements (and good
facilitation to ensure everyone had an opportunity). In reality, a timeframe for the very first
workshop relating to a target area should be around 2 hours to capture the background
information necessary and describe the project and its objectives. It is expected that
subsequent workshops within a single target area would be reduced in time as less time
would be expected to be spent on geophysical and human population vulnerabilities that are
less likely to change, and more time spent on the impacts of projects and other activity
related to climate change implemented in the community.
As the workshop methodology chosen for this project, the scoring approach used to quantify
vulnerability reduction is based on very small sample sizes and hence extreme caution
should be applied when interpreting the numerical scores. It should always be considered in
the context of the qualitative data that provides reasons, issues and descriptions. As per the
overall objective of the study, the score is useful to track over time and assess whether
vulnerability reduction is occurring as a project is implemented
6.0 Discussion and Recommendations
6.1 Discussion of Results
This study has identified a high level of vulnerability to climate change in both target areas
(Shyamnagar, Satkhira and Matbharia, Pirojpur), with water quality and supply issues ranked
highly by participants. There is a high awareness of climate change and community vulnerability
in both geographical areas and local participants were easily able to articulate impacts of
climate changes in both areas. Interestingly, even in Matbharia where there is currently no
targeted WASH program, there was a high level of awareness of the links between climate
change and water. There was little difference in current vulnerability between target areas as
measured by the VR scores for Component A and discussions around this current vulnerability
were very similar in terms of types of climate changes observed and associated impacts. The
Matbharia area cited more agricultural impacts, perhaps reflecting the diversity of agriculture in
the area (livestock, vegetable and rice crops) compared with the domination of shrimp farming
in the Shyamnagar area.
Health impacts identified ranged from skin diseases and hygiene problems to increasing
diarrhoea, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and hypertension and kidney problems. Other health
issues identified included anxiety and stress and increased reproductive cancers. Other indirect
health issues frequently mentioned included food shortages, social impacts related to difficulty
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
28
in accessing safe water and migration. Common to both project areas was the reported absence
of climate change and health related activity suggesting that the formal health sector has either
been absent in climate change adaptation efforts in these areas or has not engaged well with
the community relating to any specific surveillance or climate change health related activity it
is/has conducted. Given the reported perceived health impacts identified, this is problematic and
raises questions about the engagement of this important sector in local climate change
adaptation.
Local groups from both target areas expressed mixed confidence for support systems (including
health) to respond effectively to existing and future climate risks (as proposed by the scenario
presented to them). Lack of coordination between agencies was the main reason given for the
expressed low confidence. The future vulnerability was reported to be lower for the Shyamnagar
sub-district group, indicating a higher confidence in effective systems response to future risks.
Matbharia has no existing WASH projects but the community expressed concerns about access
to adequate supplies of safe drinking water (reduced groundwater or saline groundwater) and
the challenges for food supply (animals and crops) of inadequate or saline water. In contrast, in
Shyamnagar, despite significant challenges reported that still exist relating to safe water
supplies, the existing Water Aid WASH project that has been implemented in the community is
making a difference to the water challenges for the community. This perceived difference
appeared to strongly influence the community scores with a high level of confidence in the
ability of the local level authority to sustain projects expressed in both Shyamnagar workshops
compared to that of the Matbharia area. Interestingly, the national respondents score about
capacity of local level authorities to sustain projects was similar to that in Matbharia, citing
reasons such as: a centralised governance system with restricted authority to local government,
the lack of consistency, lack of community empowerment and a top-down approach. All groups
strongly agreed that the community had a critical role in sustaining activities.
The overall higher score for the Shyamnagar area compared with Matbharia, indicating greater
vulnerability reduction in this community is driven by components C and D which relate to
current adaptation and sustaining adaptation activity from a VR scoring perspective. This was
highly influenced by the community response in Shyamnagar where the community were united
in their view that the current Water Aid project was making a difference and provided them with
confidence that such activities could be sustained by local level authorities into the future.
The comparison of community and national level workshops confirms the need to include a
diversity of stakeholder views and perceptions in the VRA process. National respondents had a
much broader view and were able to provide more comprehensive reasons for adaptive
capacity issues including sustainability and capacity of systems. The concept of systems which
is critical to understanding adaptive capacity did not appear to be widely understood by the
community workshops (as evidenced by written responses), despite explaining the concept and
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
29
providing examples. National respondents were also able to distinguish climate related impacts
from other environmental impacts.
The VRA process (tool + workshop) appears to meet its overall objectives, though the absence
of strong health representation means that the evidence for health impacts was based on lay-
person observation in most cases with limited quantitative evidence. However, this absence of
strong health representation may partly reflect the nature of the governance system and the
focus on WASH activities for this project, recognising that WASH work is fundamentally a public
health activity.
The concept of vulnerability (current and future risk) was well understood by all, but adaptive
capacity responses were limited, partly because of a lack of understanding by all about
effectiveness of existing projects and/or the absence of any specific projects. It might be
expected that as the VRA is applied again and with the same group and apply to a particular
WASH project (e.g., in Matbharia), that participants will be more knowledgeable to respond to
the adaptive capacity parts of the VRA tool. Despite some minor adjustments to wording and
additional explanatory notes, the 4 components of the tool provide a useful breakdown of
vulnerability and adaptation activity and sustainability, allowing for an assessment of
vulnerability reduction over time. The difficulty in participants being able to comment on
effectiveness of specific projects may reflect the make-up of the workshop or lack of
communication about project objectives, monitoring and evaluation or communication of
outcomes.
6.2 Recommendations
1. For the vulnerability reduction assessment to work effectively it should be applied at
least 3 times throughout a project lifecycle and ideally, the workshop participants should
be similar for each time to ensure consistency and continuity of input. If „health‟ is the
key focus, then health stakeholders and decision-makers need to be better defined, and
their contributions increased to improve the health aspects of the assessment process.
2. Matbharia would be a useful site to implement a WASH and climate change project
given the reported vulnerability, interest and awareness of climate change issues and
strong support to the pilot workshop provided by the local NGO, indicating an interested
and committed partner.
3. Though the VR score maybe useful for tracking changes over time within a single
community, its construct is constrained by very small sample sizes. Hence the reasoning
and discussion associated with qualitative question responses is critically important for
understanding the numbers and any unexpected numerical scores.
4. As identified in Table 2, some refinements are necessary for the questions in the tool
(particularly in Components C and D) and some more time should be given to describing
concepts such as „systems capacity‟ and „sustainability‟ and „level of authority.‟ Overall,
it would be difficult to adequately collect information and discuss concepts and issues in
less than 2 hours.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
30
7.0 Conclusions
This study/project report provides an overview of the application of the UNDP/UNEP, GEF,
WHO vulnerability reduction assessment tool for 2 communities (Matbharia and Shyamnagar) in
Bangladesh. One community had no identified WASH and climate change project, while for the
other, a Water Aid climate change project was part-way through its implementation. The
objectives were to field test the tool and a process for its application and collect some climate
change and health vulnerability and adaptation information from these two selected
communities to inform further WASH project development.
The project identified that the target communities perceived climate change to be a current and
significant risk to their health, livelihoods, agricultural production and society. The key issue of
concern was that of access to adequate supplies of safe water, that was impacted by extreme
events, increased sea-level rises, reduced river-flows and changing seasonal patterns. In
Shyamnagar where a WASH project is part-way through implementation, the community and
sub-district stakeholders were positive about the benefits of the project on access to safe water
quality and confident that such activities could be sustained by the local level into the future.
This was reflected by the overall score for this community. This was in stark contrast to the
response in Matbharia and to some extent the national level respondents who considered that
local level sustainability of actions was challenged by issues such as a strong centralized
governance structure, lack of vertical integration, lack of community empowerment and a top-
down approach.
Many health impacts of climate changes were articulated by the workshop groups, however
there appears to be little hard data to support such assertions and little specific health-related
climate change adaptation action or policy was identified.
From a process perspective, the applied tool and workshop framework worked well. An overall
vulnerability reduction score was calculated and supplemented by qualitative descriptions of
impacts, issues and reasons for ratings given. This combination of a quantitative score and
qualitative material makes for a useful assessment process, though care should be taken in
interpreting scores, particularly between areas due to low sample sizes. The most important
benefit of the process will be to compare the VR score over time to identify whether vulnerability
has reduced as a result of implemented projects. Engagement with the community was
significant and feedback comprehensive and responsive to questions asked and discussed.
Some questions included concepts that were difficult to understand, requiring a higher degree of
explanation and the double negative nature of some questions was challenging to respondents.
These issues should be addressed in subsequent applications of the tool and a longer time
should be allowed for further explanation of challenging concepts.
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
31
Appendices
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
32
Appendix 1 – Question Set Including Identification of Method for Data Collection
Climate change and water vulnerability and adaptation responses in the coastal areas of Bangladesh
(FINAL VERSION 2014)
Workshop of: NATIONAL / DISTRICT/ SUB-DISTRICT/COMMUNITY……………….. (Circle one and provide a name)
Referring to: _______________________________Project (include name of project, agency responsible and location)
Question Form of Questioning Input
A. ASSESSING CURRENT VULNERABILITY (VRA indicator: vulnerability of health, health systems, to existing cc and/or
climate variability)
A1. What are the current impacts of climate in this area?
- Provide examples of evidence (observation, data, stories, etc)
Group Discussion Group
A2. What are the specific impacts on water – supply and quality in this area?
Provide examples of evidence (observation, data, stories, etc)
Group Discussion Group
A3. Where does this area currently get its water:
a. for drinking?, For other household purposes?, For business and agriculture?
Group Discussion Group
A4. Identify the influence of time of year on: i) water quantity AND ii) water quality Group Discussion Group
A5. There are currently significant problems with water quality in this area (urban) H-Form Group
A6. There are currently significant problems with water quality in this area (rural) H-Form Group
A7. These water quality problems are currently having an impact on the health of the
community
(consider direct disease, extreme events and social change impacts)
H-Form Group
A8. This geographical area/community is particularly vulnerable to climate change
impacts
H-Form Group
A9. There are specific populations in this community/geographical area that are
particularly vulnerable to climate change
H-Form Group
A10. Are systems other than health, like energy, communication and transport
particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts in this region? Why? Provide
examples, evidence. Are there any others?
Group Discussion Group
A11. The health system (eg. service delivery, health workforce, information, medical
products, financing, leadership and governance) in this area is vulnerable to climate
change?
H-Form Individual
B. ASSESSING FUTURE RISKS (VRA indicator: vulnerability of health, health systems to developing cc risks)
B1. If this area experienced a doubling of extreme events and an increase in sea level in
the future this would be catastrophic for this area
H-Form Group
B2. There would be major impacts of this scenario on water supply and quality for this
scenario (consider both types of climate change above)
H-Form Group
B3. There would be major impacts on health (direct and indirect) associated with this
scenario
H-Form Group
B4. The capacity of systems in this area to respond effectively to this scenario is limited H-Form Group
B5. The capacity of the health system to respond effectively to this scenario is limited H-Form Individual
C. FORMULATING AN ADAPTATION STRATEGY (VRA indicator: magnitude of barriers(institutional, policy,
technological, financial etc), including inter-sectoral and inter-agency barriers to health system’s adaptation)
C1. There is a lack of common vision and awareness about the impacts of climate change
amongst all agencies in this area?
H-Form Individual
C2. What projects are currently implemented in this area to manage the impact of climate
change? Briefly describe them
Group Discussion group
C3. Has this project __________been effective in managing the impact of climate H-Form individual
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
33
Question Form of Questioning Input
change??
(include as many of these as there are projects)
C4. Other than specific projects, are there any strategies, policies or other actions planned
or implemented to otherwise manage the impact of climate change and water issues in this
area? (think about National and local)
Group Discussion Group
C5. Has strategy ___________ been effective in managing the impact of climate
change?
(include as many of these as there are actions/strategies/policies)
H-Form Group
C6. Are there any planned or implemented specific health-related actions in response to
climate change in this area?
Group discussion Group
C6. Has action _____ been effective in managing the impact of climate change? H-Form Group
D. CONTINUING THE ADAPTATION PROCESS (VRA Indicator: capacity and willingness of the health system to continue
to manage cc risks)
D1. What does the government need to do so that this area and its vulnerable populations
are able to cope with the impacts of cc, particularly water, into the future?
- challenges, barriers, examples
Group Discussion Group
D2. It will be difficult for the national/provincial level authorities to sustain the water
projects/strategies implemented in this area
H-Form Group
D3. It will be difficult for the local level authorities to sustain the water
projects/strategies implemented in this area
H-Form Group
D4. There are limited opportunities available to increase the effectiveness of the water
projects/actions/strategies that exist in this area
H-Form Group
D5. Government health agencies (but not only the Health Ministry) have a limited
capacity to manage ongoing implementation of water projects/strategies/actions in this
area
H-Form Group
D6. The community has a limited role in effective and sustainable implementation of
water projects/strategies/actions in this area
H-Form Group
Vulnerability Reduction Assessment
Environmental Health Unit, WHO
34
Appendix 2 – Example H-Form Used in The Workshop
Reasons (and evidence where
possible) for a negative response
A7.This geographical area/community is
particularly vulnerable to climate change
impact
Disagree --------------- Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Reasons (and evidence where
possible) for a positive response
How could this score be improved
Recommended